Ridiculous Parc Ferme rules

When Vettel can have a clumsy drive from the back of the pack and be in contention for at least a podium, while cars who qualified legally and are supposedly on the optimum strategy struggle to compete, you seriously have to question Parc Ferme rules.

Red Bull were able to set Vettels car up perfectly for the race, while everyone else has to live with the compromise between qualifying pace and race pace.

Starting from the pitlane was supposed to be punishment for fuel irregularities but the nature of Parc Ferme rules have given him a big advantage in car performance in the race. Teams shouldn't be allowed to change their gear ratios or downforce settings after qualifying no matter what.

Posts have been removed, and the topic restarted. The reason being is that the discussion quality very quickly went downhill and went into trolling mode. The discussion here is the current Parc Ferme rules, please take Vettel's individual performance elsewhere.

The topic is whether cars that have been excluded or disqualified from Qualifying should be allowed to then optimise their car purely for the race, therefore potentially gaining an advantage.

For what it is worth, I believe that there is a valid topic to be discussed here, hence why the topic has been restarted. Keep it constructive and on topic.

Rules are rules, as many keep repeating. And in their current state they allow any team to do what RBR did. And RBR did it only because they were penalized to start at the back.
I don't see any logical reason to claim unfair advantage whatsoever. Therefore I don't see any reason to discuss the rules further.

Starting from the pitlane was supposed to be punishment for fuel irregularities

Vettel's punishment for the fuel stuff was starting last ON THE GRID. Since he was last anyway, he chose to change his setup and take the start out of the pit lane penalty that comes with it.

When Vettel can have a clumsy drive from the back of the pack and be in contention for at least a podium, while cars who qualified legally and are supposedly on the optimum strategy struggle to compete, you seriously have to question Parc Ferme rules.

Red Bull were able to set Vettels car up perfectly for the race, while everyone else has to live with the compromise between qualifying pace and race pace.

Do you honestly think HRT and so on use Qualy setups? I call for a harsher punishment on Kovalainen for example. It's so unfair. He set his car up for the race. While our poor poor Vergne tried to qualify for a better grid spot. Unfair advantage right there!

So what do you actually want? If your gearbox is broken, you aren't allowed to change it if your name is Karthikeyan and you are starting last. But it is ok, if your name is Massa, you would start 8th and get a 5 place grid penalty? Same goes for Setup changes. It's not ok for the guys on the last places to change their setup for a wet race ...? But it's ok for everybody else, because, applying your logic once again, they would actually get punished by a 5 place grid penalty.

Get rid of Parc Ferme. Its a stupid rule. Dont let them change engines or gearboxes but they should be allowed to change settings - at least that way there is a chance of improving the car after a bad qualifying.

I don't like the current parc fermé rules. I think the teams who build the fastest cars on earth should not have to run them with silly settings, and I believe that one could allow limited changes without compromising the cost savings and personnel off-time the current rules provide.

But if they exist in current form, then I don't think I agree that as a gift for infringing the rules you can rebuild your car with optimal settings, while the rules-abiding teams are punished.

Not being allowed to modify your setup after the FP/quali is just another massively idiotic rule in F1 which should be abolished IMO.

However, the whole thing is blown out of proportion in this thread. Using a "race setup" doesn't magically make the car capable of moving up 21 places in a given race. If it gave such an advantage, no team would bother devising and running a "quali setup" and get the pole just to drop back in order on Sunday.

However, the whole thing is blown out of proportion in this thread. Using a "race setup" doesn't magically make the car capable of moving up 21 places in a given race. If it gave such an advantage, no team would bother devising and running a "quali setup" and get the pole just to drop back in order on Sunday.

I don't know why you put "race setup" in quotes. These were not minor changes, they altered their gear ratios, which is a pretty massive change. And without that, they would have stayed at the bottom of the top speeds and would have had a hard time overtaking midfield cars, IMO.

Anyway, the topic is not so much today's race, but the rule in principle. So let me put this thought experiment to you: what if race day is wet? Would it be ok that the punished team goes to full wings and higher ride height, proceeding to lap 4 seconds faster than anyone else?

Biggest surpise is that gear ratios can be changed, when these usually have to be chosen after Friday? That's a bit of a hole in the rules.

No, it's not. You change the ratios whenever you want, but you will get another 5-place grid penalty. Sporting Regulations, article 28.6a:

[...]Any replacement gearbox must be fitted with the same gear ratios that were declared under d) below and will only be required to complete the remainder of the Event in question. Any change to the gear ratios declared under d) below will incur a five grid place penalty. In either case a new five race sequence may start at the following Event.

PF rules are really ridiculous IMO. But not for the reasons put in front of us.
And I dare say opening a discussion of the rules without, as it appears to me, knowing them at least at sufficient level, is also ridiculous.

They were introduced 10 years ago under very different circumstances and mainly because of fear of a total Ferrari domination that would lower the viewers' interest. Meanwhile technical regulations changed a lot, we have only 8 engines per season, frozen engine development, 5 races per gearbox, radically changed aerodynamics of the cars, cars are almost equalized, no ready to go spare car, different tyres, 2 compound rule and many more.
Still, despite the equalization, every team's car has stronger and weaker capabilities and PF (as well as the obligatory 2 compound rule) actually prevents the teams to use their cars' capabilities to the end and consequently depriving us of more exciting sporting competition. If they are allowed to tune the cars for qualifying and then for the race there will be more diverse strategies and greater mix in the standings.

Get rid of Parc Ferme. Its a stupid rule. Dont let them change engines or gearboxes but they should be allowed to change settings - at least that way there is a chance of improving the car after a bad qualifying.

The rules were introduced to cut costs and limit the time the mechanics were working on the cars as there wasn't a curfew so it was common for mechanics to work right through the night stripping the cars down and rebuilding them before the race. Before parc ferme the cars they qualified with were quite different to the race chassis. If there was no parc ferme today, then the teams would be looking at changing wings, suspension, brakes, brake ducts, even bodywork and floor if they find different designs work better in race or qualifying trim.

I don't know why you put "race setup" in quotes. These were not minor changes, they altered their gear ratios, which is a pretty massive change. And without that, they would have stayed at the bottom of the top speeds and would have had a hard time overtaking midfield cars, IMO.

Anyway, the topic is not so much today's race, but the rule in principle. So let me put this thought experiment to you: what if race day is wet? Would it be ok that the punished team goes to full wings and higher ride height, proceeding to lap 4 seconds faster than anyone else?

Quotes are there simply because there are no separate qualifying and race setups per se. Since all of the teams/drivers are interested in getting the best possible result on Sunday they're all pretty much running their optimum race setups in qualifying. The normal MO preference of RBR, for example, is to run a high downforce setup over a high top speed setup in qualifying to secure front row grid slots mainly because their aero is pretty much superior to what other teams are running. When they manage to lock the front row, it's usually a comfortable cruise to the flag on Sunday.

What RBR did with Vettel's car today didn't make it any quicker. It was almost certainly slower over a single lap than with the setup they had during qualifying. The only thing they got in exchange was higher top speed to help overtaking.

To the thought experiment: You don't need to be punished to be "allowed" to change your setup. If you know that you can make your car lap 4 seconds faster than anyone else on the track by adjusting the setup, it's probably a good idea to ditch the grid position and start from the pitlane. But like I said, IMO the teams should be allowed to freely tweak their machinery between sessions.

Quotes are there simply because there are no separate qualifying and race setups per se. Since all of the teams/drivers are interested in getting the best possible result on Sunday they're all pretty much running their optimum race setups in qualifying. The normal MO preference of RBR, for example, is to run a high downforce setup over a high top speed setup in qualifying to secure front row grid slots mainly because their aero is pretty much superior to what other teams are running. When they manage to lock the front row, it's usually a comfortable cruise to the flag on Sunday.

What RBR did with Vettel's car today didn't make it any quicker. It was almost certainly slower over a single lap than with the setup they had during qualifying. The only thing they got in exchange was higher top speed to help overtaking.

To the thought experiment: You don't need to be punished to be "allowed" to change your setup. If you know that you can make your car lap 4 seconds faster than anyone else on the track by adjusting the setup, it's probably a good idea to ditch the grid position and start from the pitlane. But like I said, IMO the teams should be allowed to freely tweak their machinery between sessions.

Vettel even said after the race, that the setup changes helped on the straights, but weren't the optimum in clean air.

Quotes are there simply because there are no separate qualifying and race setups per se. Since all of the teams/drivers are interested in getting the best possible result on Sunday they're all pretty much running their optimum race setups in qualifying. The normal MO preference of RBR, for example, is to run a high downforce setup over a high top speed setup in qualifying to secure front row grid slots mainly because their aero is pretty much superior to what other teams are running. When they manage to lock the front row, it's usually a comfortable cruise to the flag on Sunday.

OK with the quotes then I agree with the other stuff you wrote here

What RBR did with Vettel's car today didn't make it any quicker. It was almost certainly slower over a single lap than with the setup they had during qualifying. The only thing they got in exchange was higher top speed to help overtaking.

It made it quicker over a race distance because they did not get stuck in midfield.

To the thought experiment: You don't need to be punished to be "allowed" to change your setup. If you know that you can make your car lap 4 seconds faster than anyone else on the track by adjusting the setup, it's probably a good idea to ditch the grid position and start from the pitlane. But like I said, IMO the teams should be allowed to freely tweak their machinery between sessions.

Yes, but normally you need to take into account that the rivals around you don't do it and there is a risk. This changes a lot for, say, a midfield team that gets relegated to the back. They have less to lose, the odds for a gamble suddenly become better. If they get lucky it would turn the whole purpose of sending them to the back on its head.

No, it's not. You change the ratios whenever you want, but you will get another 5-place grid penalty. Sporting Regulations, article 28.6a:

[...]Any replacement gearbox must be fitted with the same gear ratios that were declared under d) below and will only be required to complete the remainder of the Event in question. Any change to the gear ratios declared under d) below will incur a five grid place penalty. In either case a new five race sequence may start at the following Event.

That is a double whammy. You change the gear ratio after FP2, and the FIA deemed that you are using a new gearbox as well. It is a 5-place grid penalty and a new 5 race sequence for the changed gearbox's ratio.

I think it is upto the teams to decide this option. Make up places at the start by starting from back of grid OR change the car setup and start from pit lane. If it was Monaco, Vettel would have prefered starting from back of grid.

I think it's somewhat absurd to further penalize drivers in not allowing them to change their setup after a penalty that is ridiculously harsh IMO. Everyone is free to crank up their straightline speed and start from the pitlane if they wish, the only reason people see this as an advantage now is because RB and Vettel were able to manage such a great comeback with good tactics and Vettel's ability to get such good pace out of it with a car that was compromised in that department.

I think it's somewhat absurd to further penalize drivers in not allowing them to change their setup after a penalty that is ridiculously harsh IMO. Everyone is free to crank up their straightline speed and start from the pitlane if they wish, the only reason people see this as an advantage now is because RB and Vettel were able to manage such a great comeback with good tactics and Vettel's ability to get such good pace out of it with a car that was compromised in that department.

After reading some posts in here I am getting nagging feeling that even if Vettel was excluded from AD race, some would have subsequently suggested that he should have been excluded from the whole season, or even better, out of F1.

For most Teams it's not an option, because their top speed is good anyway - some examples: Ferrari, Sauber, Force India and even Toro Rosso. At Red Bull they opt to go for high downforce to qualify in front. So they can dominate the race from the front and don't need the straight line speed to pass. Quite risky as you can see with Webber, who regularly starts slow, loses places and has consequently problems to gain the positions back again.

So for Ferrari a start from the pit lane would be no benefit at all - as it would for most teams. For RBR it was an opportunity to make a correction to their setup, which would have only worked if Vettel had started from the front of the grid. So stop trying to prove, that the rule is ridicoulus, because this time it worked a little bit in favour of your most hated driver.

In general, i dont get this moaning about Vettel getting some kind of advantage from changing his setup and starting from the pitlane. Like it has been said many times, every team can do that.

People keep bringing this up. Stop it.

Teams shouldn't have to because everybody, meaning the entire grid, are supposed to be running the under the same compromised circumstances. Grid position, especially at a track like Abu Dhabi is king. The changes negated some of that punishment...

What would have been fair under the current parc ferme regulations would have been for the stewards to allow the necessary changes to what constituted the force majeure.

In general, i dont get this moaning about Vettel getting some kind of advantage from changing his setup and starting from the pitlane. Like it has been said many times, every team can do that.

My thought exactly. Why should you use a different setup for qualifying, when the result of the qualifying doesn't matter, because you decided to start from the pitlane anyway.A setup change would be nonsense. But if you don't have to change the setup, why should you even start from the pitlane.In the case of a penalty it can make sense of course.

For most Teams it's not an option, because their top speed is good anyway - some examples: Ferrari, Sauber, Force India and even Toro Rosso. At Red Bull they opt to go for high downforce to qualify in front. So they can dominate the race from the front and don't need the straight line speed to pass. Quite risky as you can see with Webber, who regularly starts slow, loses places and has consequently problems to gain the positions back again.

So for Ferrari a start from the pit lane would be no benefit at all - as it would for most teams. For RBR it was an opportunity to make a correction to their setup, which would have only worked if Vettel had started from the front of the grid. So stop trying to prove, that the rule is ridicoulus, because this time it worked a little bit in favour of your most hated driver.

So in a nutshell, the rule is not ridiculous because it is of no use for any team but Red Bull.

The rule is ridiculous because being sent to the back of the pack implies being given a free for all pass. Vettel could have gotten a free fresh engine had they had a good one available in Abu Dhabi.

IMO, if you are at the back of the pack due to a penalty, you should not be able to take advantage of any option that, should you not had been given a penalty in the first time, would have costed you a penalty. So for every penalty that could not have been given, due to being last in the grid, the driver should be given a drive through, have twenty seconds added to his time, or (this is the one I like less, because it impacts other races) be given a grid penalty at the next race.

So in a nutshell, the rule is not ridiculous because it is of no use for any team but Red Bull.

The rule is ridiculous because being sent to the back of the pack implies being given a free for all pass. Vettel could have gotten a free fresh engine had they had a good one available in Abu Dhabi.

IMO, if you are at the back of the pack due to a penalty, you should not be able to take advantage of any option that, should you not had been given a penalty in the first time, would have costed you a penalty. So for every penalty that could not have been given, due to being last in the grid, the driver should be given a drive through, have twenty seconds added to his time, or (this is the one I like less, because it impacts other races) be given a grid penalty at the next race.

The bolded part is of extreme relevance. A driver will now have a free fresh engine and gearbox cycle while his competitors, who adhered to the regulations, are locked into what they have.

IMO, if you are at the back of the pack due to a penalty, you should not be able to take advantage of any option that, should you not had been given a penalty in the first time, would have costed you a penalty. So for every penalty that could not have been given, due to being last in the grid, the driver should be given a drive through, have twenty seconds added to his time, or (this is the one I like less, because it impacts other races) be given a grid penalty at the next race.

He got a penalty for changing setup = starting from the pitlane instead of starting from 24th.

I must admit that I'm not well informed on the F1 rule book and had never heard of this rule before Hamilton in Catalunya, but my first impression after the ruling then was that what an incredibly harsh penalty it was. This going against one of my least favourite drivers out there and at that point looking like the biggest threat for the title for my most favourite drivers.

So in a nutshell, the rule is not ridiculous because it is of no use for any team but Red Bull.

The rule is ridiculous because being sent to the back of the pack implies being given a free for all pass. Vettel could have gotten a free fresh engine had they had a good one available in Abu Dhabi.

IMO, if you are at the back of the pack due to a penalty, you should not be able to take advantage of any option that, should you not had been given a penalty in the first time, would have costed you a penalty. So for every penalty that could not have been given, due to being last in the grid, the driver should be given a drive through, have twenty seconds added to his time, or (this is the one I like less, because it impacts other races) be given a grid penalty at the next race.

You simply don't get it, do you? The penalty the driver already got, is harshened further, by starting from the pit lane. The driver has to wait until the last car on the track passes the pitlane exit line. Then he is allowed to start. In Abu Dhabi due to the complex pit lane exit through the tunnel with a very slow corner, you lose 7 or 8 seconds to the last car on the track. This gap you have to close first and then start racing the other cars.I can see no benefit from that, even if you are allowed to chance your setup.

Did you know, that setting up a F1 car is almost science? By starting from pit lane you have to take a guess with your revised setup, because you can't test it - you don't even have the installation lap (the drive to the starting grid) to check it. You could go the wrong way completely. Even with the gearing, you could be wrong - by losing acceleration, but gaining top speed, the lap times could be slower and the driver would be in trouble to even get an overtaking opportunity.

It is all very clear, why you try to argument in this way: You want to dismiss Vettel and his crew of their great performance. Very poor.

You simply don't get it, do you? The penalty the driver already got, is harshened further, by starting from the pit lane. The driver has to wait until the last car on the track passes the pitlane exit line. Then he is allowed to start. In Abu Dhabi due to the complex pit lane exit through the tunnel with a very slow corner, you lose 7 or 8 seconds to the last car on the track. This gap you have to close first and then start racing the other cars.I can see no benefit from that, even if you are allowed to chance your setup.

Did you know, that setting up a F1 car is almost science? By starting from pit lane you have to take a guess with your revised setup, because you can't test it - you don't even have the installation lap (the drive to the starting grid) to check it. You could go the wrong way completely. Even with the gearing, you could be wrong - by losing acceleration, but gaining top speed, the lap times could be slower and the driver would be in trouble to even get an overtaking opportunity.

It is all very clear, why you try to argument in this way: You want to dismiss Vettel and his crew of their great performance. Very poor.

Didn't Vettel drive around on an installation lap and then down the pit lane before starting?

IMO, if you are at the back of the pack due to a penalty, you should not be able to take advantage of any option that, should you not had been given a penalty in the first time, would have costed you a penalty. So for every penalty that could not have been given, due to being last in the grid, the driver should be given a drive through, have twenty seconds added to his time, or (this is the one I like less, because it impacts other races) be given a grid penalty at the next race.

Starting from the pit-lane is an option available to anyone on the grid. It has nothing to do with Vettel's penalty. If Lewis, Alonso or Kim wanted to change setup, they also had the option of starting from the pit-lane, and would have then had all the benefits which Vettel got. So what is the issue here?

People are forgetting that starting P24 and starting in the pitlane are two different issues. If you are starting from the pitlane, then post-qualifying parc ferme rules no longer apply.

Sebastian was sent to the back of the grid, ie P24, for having an underfuelled car. Since Red Bull decided to change his race set-up, he was further penalized by having to start from the pit lane.

That (in bold) claim might be very well incorrect, and in reality we do not know how much fuel his cell held. What we do know for fact is, that sampling chamber had less than one liter of fuel in it. I am not playing with semantics, but it might be just as much difference in it as starting a race in P24 on the grid or in pits. It's not the same thing.

Is that a change to the rules?I remember several times in the past seeing people driving around and then down the pit lane to start.

Or was Vettel just under different circumstances

nope that how the rules have been for a while

38.2 17 minutes before the start of the formation lap, a warning signal will be given indicating that the end of the pit lane will be closed in two minutes.15 minutes before the start of the formation lap the end of the pit lane will be closed and a second warning signal will be given. Any car which is still in the pit lane can start from the end of the pit lane provided it got there under its own power. If more than one car is affected they must line up in the order in which they qualified. However, any car reaching the end of the pit lane after the five minute signal must start behind any car already at the pit exit.All such cars may then join the race once the whole field has passed the end of the pit lane for the first time after the start.

and

23.7 Any driver that is required to start the race from the pit lane may not drive his car from his teamfs designated garage area until the 15 minute signal has been given and must stop in a line in the fast lane.Under these circumstances working in the fast lane will be permitted but any such work is restricted to :a) Starting the engine and any directly associated preparation.b) The fitting or removal of permitted cooling and heating devices.c) Changes made for driver comfort.d) Changing wheels.When cars are permitted to leave the pit lane they must do so in the order that was established under Article 38.2 unless another car is unduly delayed. At all times drivers must follow the directions of the marshals.

in layman's terms you are free to do installation laps until the pitlane closes, 15 minutes before the race starts. Any driver starting from the pitlane may not leave his garage before the pitlane closes ergo he can't do installation laps.

What can happen is that a car can develop a mech problem (for example) on the formation lap, in which case it returns to the garage the mechanics work on it and then it starts from the pitlane. But if somebody is required to start from the pitlane for whatever regulatory reason then he can only join the track after the race has started.

If starting from the pitlane is such an unfair advantage, i wonder why Mclaren didn't the same when Hamilton was stripped of his pole because of underfueling in Spain.

Red Bull have dominated the last 3 years, not just because of a better car.

Newey & co make smart operational decisions, McLaren have been complete failures in that area.

The option of choosing to start from the pitlane and changing all settings is always available, and TBH I'm very surprised that it's not tried more often when weather conditions change greatly between quali and race. OK, I can see why the top 10 on the grid don't go for it, but if you are near the back anyway, why not?

I think people are upset here because Red Bull weren't punished for the quali irregularity, because they would have got the same punishment if they just decided to change the setup. It seems to me that it's almost like they are asking for further punishment because Red Bull are too clever.

So in a nutshell, the rule is not ridiculous because it is of no use for any team but Red Bull.

The rule is ridiculous because being sent to the back of the pack implies being given a free for all pass. Vettel could have gotten a free fresh engine had they had a good one available in Abu Dhabi.

IMO, if you are at the back of the pack due to a penalty, you should not be able to take advantage of any option that, should you not had been given a penalty in the first time, would have costed you a penalty. So for every penalty that could not have been given, due to being last in the grid, the driver should be given a drive through, have twenty seconds added to his time, or (this is the one I like less, because it impacts other races) be given a grid penalty at the next race.

I don't even know where to start with this post. The rules have been like this for a very long time. So, e34, I'll take your suggested rules for a given. Some examples:Vergne qualifies for the 16th place. He wants a near Gearbox, so he is faster in the race. He is allowed too, since he'll get a full 5 place drop.Glock's Gearbox is broken. Sadly he only qualified on the 22th place. So he'll get a 2 place grid drop and a 12 second( 3/5 of 20) added time.And now the biggest joke:Karthikeya qualified last. The race is going to be in mixed conditions. Nope, sorry dude. If you want to change your setup you'll have a 5 grid place in the next GP. If you are last there anyway, the penalty will apply on the race after. If you however qualify as 23, only a 4 grid penalty is taking over! Doesn't that sound great?

The bolded part is of extreme relevance. A driver will now have a free fresh engine and gearbox cycle while his competitors, who adhered to the regulations, are locked into what they have.

You are implying that Vettel did not "adhere" to the rules. I ask you to quote a rule that he did not "adhere" to. Thanks.

He got a penalty for changing setup = starting from the pitlane instead of starting from 24th.

Like someone said that's techincaly no penalty. They chose(!) to change their setup and start out of the pits.

Seriously, it's been that for ages. You guys do not care at all how HRT or TR are setting up their cars, not at all. You do not care if the HRT brakes are damaged and they have to start from the pits. But suddenly the whole rules have to be rewritten after yesterday? Ya .. right.

That (in bold) claim might be very well incorrect, and in reality we do not know how much fuel his cell held. What we do know for fact is, that sampling chamber had less than one liter of fuel in it. I am not playing with semantics, but it might be just as much difference in it as starting a race in P24 on the grid or in pits. It's not the same thing.

Like someone said that's techincaly no penalty. They chose(!) to change their setup and start out of the pits.

Seriously, it's been that for ages. You guys do not care at all how HRT or TR are setting up their cars, not at all. You do not care if the HRT brakes are damaged and they have to start from the pits. But suddenly the whole rules have to be rewritten after yesterday? Ya .. right.

You are implying that Vettel did not "adhere" to the rules. I ask you to quote a rule that he did not "adhere" to. Thanks.

He didn't drive to the pits on his own steam and didn't have the necessary fuel sample. Got punished for it and as result got change his setup and components which would normally incur penalties of their own.

This is not rocket science and it shouldn't matter if it has happened previously. It always take a front runner to bring these sort of things to the attention of the general public.

Do you think it is fair that he now has a new gearbox? Had they had a fresh engine he could have replaced it as well and be smiling come Brazil.

You simply don't get it, do you? The penalty the driver already got, is harshened further, by starting from the pit lane. The driver has to wait until the last car on the track passes the pitlane exit line. Then he is allowed to start. In Abu Dhabi due to the complex pit lane exit through the tunnel with a very slow corner, you lose 7 or 8 seconds to the last car on the track. This gap you have to close first and then start racing the other cars.I can see no benefit from that, even if you are allowed to chance your setup.

Did you know, that setting up a F1 car is almost science? By starting from pit lane you have to take a guess with your revised setup, because you can't test it - you don't even have the installation lap (the drive to the starting grid) to check it. You could go the wrong way completely. Even with the gearing, you could be wrong - by losing acceleration, but gaining top speed, the lap times could be slower and the driver would be in trouble to even get an overtaking opportunity.

It is all very clear, why you try to argument in this way: You want to dismiss Vettel and his crew of their great performance. Very poor.

So Red Bull, in their infinite longing for justice, decided that the penalty they got was not harsh enough, and resolved to start from the pit lane, not because they were trying to get an advantage, but because they felt 8 more seconds of penalty was fairer.

Then, putting always the spirit of challenge and achievement in the first place, they took a gamble with uncertain results and changed the setup of the car for the heck of it, just to spice up things, so his driver had a harder time and could shine in adversity.

And you say it is me the one that don't get it.

By the way, my comment had nothing to do specifically with RBR and their performance last Sunday. It was about a rule that has no sense. Kudos to them for using it to their advantage, but please, try and engage your brain next time you try to take me for a ride. They took an advantage they had available. If, in your opinion, that dismisses Vettel's feat, deal with it.

Edit: At Realyn: "I don't even know where to start with this post". Well, you could start by reading "When you are at the back of the pack due to a penalty" And for most other examples you mention, there was a solution. I think it is called force majeure. A pity that Horner make a mockery of it last Saturday.

Do you think it is fair that he now has a new gearbox? Had they had a fresh engine he could have replaced it as well and be smiling come Brazil.

On the subject of what's fair, do you think it's fair to put a driver to the back of the grid because he is 0,15 l underfuelled, while a driver who changes his engine only gets a 10 place grid drop? I don't, but on the other hand the rules are what they are and i don't have any big issues with them. To me all this fuzz seems just sour grapes.

On the subject of what's fair, do you think it's fair to put a driver to the back of the grid because he is 0,15 l underfuelled, while a driver who changes his engine only gets a 10 place grid drop? I don't, but on the other hand the rules are what they are and i don't have any big issues with them. To me all this fuzz seems just sour grapes.

I've stated numerous times that the punishment for such an offence needs to be looked at but the penalty has nothing to do with a team being allowed to change everything on the car with no recourse simply because he is already at the back of the grid.

I've stated numerous times that the punishment for such an offence needs to be looked at but the penalty has nothing to do with a team being allowed to change everything on the car with no recourse simply because he is already at the back of the grid.

It's getting pretty old, I allready asked you to quote the rules that RB broke(or well, adhered) and you were not able to do it.

Now I would like to know at which point RB were allowed(by the FIA or what the hell are you talking about?) to change parts on the car with no recourse aka penalty.

Aaaand I'm asking again. If it is Karthikeyan(who qualified 23 and allready got a 5 place grid penalty for blocking someone in q1 . Happy that way e34?;)) changing his gearbox ... you would go nuts the same way, right? It's not because we are talking about Ferrari's main rival ... right?